North Korea Foreign Ministry says talks with Pompeo 'regrettable,'

We should move everyone who thinks war with South Korea is good to North Korea. Oh, wait, the communists already did that!

Remember that both countries are already at war with each other, officially. And it is very much OK to push for war, it has been for a long time.
Although I'm sure the regime has come up with nicer ways to push for war.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Everyone accept Trump and his diehards knew NK idea of denuclearization included the removal of US assets in the region as well as missile defense
programs.

NK representatives have made that clear for years and now that Trump has pissed off China and NK has made the US look like the one breaking deals as
well as Trump legitimizing little Kim with his meet and greets it looks like the US has lost a ton of credibility to pressure NK.

How is attempting to negotiate with Kim losing credibility? This comment makes no sense. Negotiations should always come before actions. Negotiation
can only make the party who is unwilling ro negotiate look bad.

How else are we supposed to solve problems. Should we give the country over to the neocons and just go straight to war. How has the demon we gave
birth to in the middle east making the US look right now?

I was liking this post up until the Middle East comment. Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, it's not like we rushed into war. Saddam had been
thumbing his nose at the US and UN for over a decade. We gave him a ton of chances to avoid war.

There were no WMD in Iraq. What was Saddam doing other than killing the Wahhabist who we kept calling freedom fighters? I suggest you have no idea why
we went to war. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were never the problem.

They opposed radical islam, we gave Wahhabist money and weapons. Their is absolutely no defending the US actions in the middle east.

Those were wars about money and oil, they had nothing to do with freedom, quality of life or threat to US or US interests.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
just like Mexico is not paying for the wall.

Short of war, why would they? Would you? I wouldn't.

On the other hand why do they just sit back and let 100,000s come into their country knowing they are heading to America. Whether they pay for the
wall or not they are the primary instigator in our border problem and should pay one way or another for that.

There were no WMD in Iraq. What was Saddam doing other than killing the Wahhabist who we kept calling freedom fighters? I suggest you have no idea why
we went to war. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were never the problem.

They opposed radical islam, we gave Wahhabist money and weapons. Their is absolutely no defending the US actions in the middle east.

Those were wars about money and oil, they had nothing to do with freedom, quality of life or threat to US or US interests.

I've already derailed another thread straightening out some misconceptions about military spending and the Iraq War. I really don't want to derail
this thread.

We know for a fact they had WMD. They used them on Iran
in the 80s. They even used them against their own people. What we got wrong
was that they weren't actively producing them anymore. But they did have plans to resume production once they played nice long enough to get all the
sanctions lifted, which is the same game Iran is playing right now.

Anyway, like I said I have no wish to derail the thread with a debate about the merits of the Iraq War, I was merely taking exception to the idea that
we rushed into war. Nor was it just something cooked up by the Bush administration. The intelligence that led to the invasion had been collected
since the Clinton administration.

You mean the chemical weapons the CIA gave him. We gave him the idea and then we killled him for it.

No, the ones they produced themselves.

The 1980 Iran-Iraq War gave new impetus to chemical weapons research. In June 1981 Iraq founded Project 922, within the Ministry of Defense,
to oversee development and production. [4] Project 922 drew much of its equipment and expertise from the al Rashad laboratory complex of the al Hazen
Institute, and was able to produce tens of tons of mustard gas by 1983. [5] Project 922 continued to expand in size and scope, and by 1989 had
produced several thousand tons of CW agents, including mustard gas and two different types of nerve agents.

There was some behind the scenes stuff with CIA, sure, but let's be fair, who hasn't been #ed with by US intelligence? Better yet, what other
country's intelligence apparatus hasn't #ed with just about every other major country, including the US?

Hussein continued to have aspirations of eventually restarting WMD production all the way up until the invasion. I don't have a source for that last
part, because I read that in a book. I think it was in
Debriefing the President: The
Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, but I'm not 100% sure. I've read a lot of books the last few years, it's hard to keep them all straight. Saddam
didn't admit to that himself, that was intel they gained from interrogating his generals.

I don't support two-faced leaders.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Our problems with Saddam spanned multiple administrations from both major US political parties. It's not like one
President set him up and then invaded, which isn't what happened anyway. Again, none of this is to say whether the invasion was a good idea or not.
The facts I've presented here don't hinge on whether you were for or against the war, they have no bearing on whether it was a sound decision.

originally posted by: pavil
Boy are some people here just drooling hoping the talks with NK fail. Would you just rather we go to open hostilities?

Negotiations will continue.

That's how much they hate Trump. They'd rather see military conflict than have to give Trump credit for success.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I hate both Trump and Hillary.

But let's be honest, all the conservatives in ATS did the exact same thing when Bill Clinton's rapprochement with Kim's father failed. I was here
and remember it.

For what it's worth, I am a conservative. You CAN be conservative and despite Trump, btw. And I sincerely do hope for peace. But it was laughable
how all the Trumpian lemmings here were convinced beyond a doubt NK would denuclearize.

No, no they didn't. Your wrongness is bigley.

Bill Clinton's Korea deal was in 1993 and Simon didn't even register ATS until 1997. Your lies are laughable.

ETA and no, Trump supporters as a whole seemed to really want peace, but also realize who and what Kim is. hoping for positive things isn't quite the
same as being convinced without a doubt. Please don't post things this ignorant again.

Having paid attention to this from the get go, the following can be stated:

The first is to open up with a statement: Once an action has been done, it cannot be undone.

From the start of this, it has been a trap, in favor of North Korea and the US, under the leadership of Trump, took it hook, line and sinker. No
country that has ever had nuclear weapons, that they have built, will ever be free of such. They can get rid of the missiles, but the cores still
remain and more importantly, the knowledge of such will always be present. Even Russia and the USA have learned this lesson. You see the destruction
of the main part of the weapon, but the part that does all of the damage, you never see destroyed, for it is not so easy to unmake or destroy without
consequences.

The problem is that North Korea has a habit of this kind of behavior, they sent up signals that they want peace, and then when it looks like there
could be progress, will claim to be slighted, or that the terms are unfavorable, and then the talks end and they go back with all gains and not
having given anything up. And that is what is going on now, however, the gains that was gotten are more intangible and have are more consequences
around the world for both countries.

The president met with the leader of North Korea, however it was done haphazardly, with no conditions, with no definitions and with no real way for
them to proceed, save a document that is neither binding or having any real consequences. And therein is the problem the very definitions, of what is
said in that document. The president sits alone with no one to whisper into his ear, to give him direction on what may be good for the country, but
prefers to go it alone, and thus this is on him, to deal with.

If one thought that this one meeting was going to end the Korean conflict, the answer is no. Unfortunately that will have to be between North and
South Korea.

Liberals are the ones who GAVE Trump this economy. You can thank Obama.

What an absurd thing to say that liberals want the economy to fail. It's the Democrats who have to pull this Country up by the boot straps every time
after a Republican President ruins the economy. Obama did it after Bush. Clinton did it after Reagan/Bush. And I suspect, whoever the next Dem
President is, will have to fix the "tariff" economy that Trump will leave in a complete mess.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.